How the Trump Administration Affects Immigration

July 24, 2017
By
Smith Law Offices, LLC

Share

This year has been a tumultuous one for everyone following immigration
and its related issues. From the beginning of the administration, most
people who understood immigration law knew the new regime would make things
difficult. One of the first executive orders (EO) passed, in fact, was
EO 13769 or
Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. This order effectively suspended the admission of any Syrian refugees
indefinitely, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days,
restricted the entry of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries,
and prioritized Christian refugees. This order was challenged in court
by several judges around the United States, the first of which was by
Judge James Robart of Washington.

Later, the order was repealed and replaced with EO 13780, which was almost
exactly the same. The suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
was also suspended, it restricted the admission and halted new visa applications
from six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,
and Yemen) for 90 days, ordered a list of countries for entry restrictions
after 90 days, and suspended admission of refugees for 120 days.

Unlike the 1st order, this one was at least slightly thought out, seeking to avoid the
mass confusion that happened after the first EO passed. However, as it
was so similar to previous versions, it, too, was challenged. This time,
the state of Hawaii brought a civil action against the order and an injunction
that halted it. The judge who ordered the injunction said the EO violated the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

In June, after a panel of the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on whether
or not to uphold the injunction, the panel partially upheld the injunction.
It found the EO violated the relevant statute but found the judge who
ordered the injunction (District Judge Derrick Watson) should have avoided
the constitutional question. Later in June, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed
the lower court injunctions as it applied to those who have no “credible
claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United
States.” It also left Judge Watson’s order on family definitions
in place but stayed the part of the injunction on refugee resettlement
agencies. The court has scheduled oral arguments in the case for later
in October.

As of now, the EO is in effect, though it is partially blocked by court
order. Nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen who
do have “bona fide” relationships with people in the United
States are
exempt from the 90-day travel ban. Those who are not exempt would have to qualify
for a waiver in order to get a
visa or to enter the United States. More on the order will be available once
the Supreme Court issues a final decision later this fall.

The EO has made travel difficult for many people in desperate situations.
While American citizens are no longer stranded in limbo as airports tried
to enforce the 1st EO, many people are still left at a loss of what to do now that the United
States is no longer a refuge for the politically persecuted.

If you think you’re affected by the ban, your best decision to ensure
you know your rights is to speak to an experienced
St. Charles immigration attorney. Immigration law is incredibly complex, so a skilled attorney on your
side might be just what you require to meet your legal needs. Our attorneys at
Smith Law Offices, LLC have more than 20 years of legal experience to offer your case, and we
provide services in English, Spanish, French, and Russian. Let us see
what we can do for your case.

Contact us at (636) 400-1177 or fill out our online form to schedule a case consultation
today. We answer all calls and emails promptly.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.